[ThrustingBoy]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Satyrs, unicorns and dragons are mention in other sources beyond The Bible. Pliney the Elder, hardly a Christian mentions them in his Natural History.

Thank you Bobby Joe, I have research Pliny and some of his writing and it was rather interesting to see these creatures mentioned outside of the Bible, especially when Natural History was so widespread. But Pliny was still not without religious bias, it would be easily assumed that he believed what the rest of ancient rome, which did include many creatures including Satyrs, unicorns, dragons, and more. I admit that you bring up a good point here and is a decent blow to my answer and thank you for it. But without any skeletal remains of any of these creatures it does come down to the fact that you either believe it or you don't.

Atoms do not exist, stupid boy. They are a liberal hoax in a desperate attempt to cover up Biblical Truth™:

Colossians 1:16-17:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

[COLOR=black]Matter consists of Christium, not atoms. They knew this already in 1611, so if you had done some research, you would have known.

Wow, Bobby Joe or someone, can't you shut up this mor-on, I swear he just follows me around this forum.
Look, READ MY POST, and find out that I am answering all these questions that were directed toward Evolutionists from an Evolutionists's standpoint. I quote myself in saying
"1) Evolutionists most of the time do not believe in the Bible, so therefore they simply do not believe there was a talking snake because outside of what it says in the Bible there is not proof of this. I am not trying to prove anything from the Bibles stand point, only my own and the answers evolutionists generally say in response to these pretty good questions."

Well, I do not believe in evolution. And yet you keep using evolutionary arguments for your opinions. On the other hand, you don't want me to use Biblical arguments, because you do not believe in the Bible? Those are double standards, friend.

You have been following me for a little while and if you would actually read my posts you would see that I do accept your Biblical scriptures and arguments in the other threads, but this one is about Evolutionists with questions specified for Evolutionists to answer. Stop following me around and arguing every single point I make about everything. This is especially annoying when you don't say anything intelligent and just want to bash me.

AND LASTLY

What I meant was that you didn't bother to check True Christian™ rebuttals of answers given in this thread earlier. You weren't saying anything new.

1) Not all the questions were answered only the first few were brought up.
2 ) Some of the answers were unintelligent and really said nothing (but I assume you didn't read other posts either). I try to answer more clearly and thoroughly then the other people that tried on here.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

I am not trying to prove anything to you other than we CAN answer the questions.

Which is a fair point. And I have to admit it is impressive that you seem to be able to create a logically sounding answer for many things even though your logic is completely different from the Holy Bible. You clearly thought this through.

Something that I often wonder about in these cases. What is in your perspective the meaning of life?

For me it's simple. I do what God told me, I suffer in life and then I get rewarded by eternal life in Heaven. Since you obviously do not believe that to be true, what is the use of all this? What about death?

[ThrustingBoy]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Which is a fair point. And I have to admit it is impressive that you seem to be able to create a logically sounding answer for many things even though your logic is completely different from the Holy Bible. You clearly thought this through.

Something that I often wonder about in these cases. What is in your perspective the meaning of life?

For me it's simple. I do what God told me, I suffer in life and then I get rewarded by eternal life in Heaven. Since you obviously do not believe that to be true, what is the use of all this? What about death?

A fair question Cranky, and the my answer is rather boring, even sort of sad. But I don't think there is really any meaning for us to be here. There isn't really a use for use, we just "are" through millions of years of evolution. And in my opinion I think this is why religion is so important and has been so very important for so many people, because people NEED to believe that there is something waiting for them after they die, because really nobody wants to die. And an afterlife gives them a sort of eternal state of being. This isn't something that is fun, or easy for me to believe, I hate the fact that one day I will no longer be on this earth with the people I love, and eventually one day be forgotten forever. Heaven gives people to something to look forward too, to make the thought of death less frightening. So to answer your question about what I believe happens when you die, nothing, like turning off the light switch of your brain.
Like I said, rather sad, and boring. But I don't go around thinking about death all of the time though, I spend my time thinking about life and doing what I can to make the most out of it .

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

I am fairly certain I am not going to convince you here but...

But I don't think there is really any meaning for us to be here.

It seems to me this should make you wonder sometimes about things like "is this all" and "is this all there is to it".

This isn't something that is fun, or easy for me to believe, I hate the fact that one day I will no longer be on this earth with the people I love, and eventually one day be forgotten forever.

That is indeed a sad thought.

So to answer your question about what I believe happens when you die, nothing, like turning off the light switch of your brain.

So in a way to you the universe is mostly a cruel joke. We all get to sniff at the joys of life a little bit only to lose it forever in the end and after that be forgotten for all eternity.

What amazes me most is that while you realize all these things you still refuse to believe that there is more to life than just a cruel joke. That you will not die but live for all eternity and that life actually has a real purpose. All this being, surprise surprise, God and his amazing Holy Bible.

I often hear that some of the rules in the Bible are cruel and perhaps they are. But it seems all nice and fluffy compared to having it your way.

[A Follower]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

What exactly is the evolutionary advantage of dying? Bacteria, fungi, several sorts of plants and other beings don't die of old age, why did evolution make us die if no one wants to die?

The only reason I can see for dying is because God wants us to go to Heaven (or punish sinners with everlasting torment, as He sees fit).

[True Disciple]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

What exactly is the evolutionary advantage of dying? Bacteria, fungi, several sorts of plants and other beings don't die of old age, why did evolution make us die if no one wants to die?

The only reason I can see for dying is because God wants us to go to Heaven (or punish sinners with everlasting torment, as He sees fit).

Good point, Brother!
As True Christians(tm), we know that dying is a result of the Fall of Man.
Evilutionists yet have to find an explanation for it, so it joins the list of the millions of things which are explained by the Bible, but not by evolution!

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Thank you Bobby Joe, I have research Pliny and some of his writing and it was rather interesting to see these creatures mentioned outside of the Bible, especially when Natural History was so widespread. But Pliny was still not without religious bias, it would be easily assumed that he believed what the rest of ancient rome, which did include many creatures including Satyrs, unicorns, dragons, and more. I admit that you bring up a good point here and is a decent blow to my answer and thank you for it. But without any skeletal remains of any of these creatures it does come down to the fact that you either believe it or you don't.

You secularists seem mighty quick to point out religious bias when an observers don't fit you agenda. In Pliny's defense he wrote his book a hundred years after Julius Caesar, who was among other thing the high priest of Rome, proposed life imprisonment instead of the death penalty on the ground that no one believed in the gods. I would think it would be reasonable to say Pliny was at best extremely lax in his beliefs.

[ThrustingBoy]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

First of all I am glad that we CAN actually get along and have a nice discussion, but hope you all don't turn mean on me next time I bring up something you don't like . (Glares at the cucumber and Atheist threads) Please keep in mind that I am not trying to convert anybody and respect your religion, and that you go strictly by the Bible, and I understand the vast majority of an Atheist (Goths don't count, they are just generally stupid but that's another subject) but your mega defensive stance needs to come down a notch please, at least against me . If you look at the other threads then you will see I have never attacked your religion as I have been accused of.

You secularists seem mighty quick to point out religious bias when an observers don't fit you agenda. In Pliny's defense he wrote his book a hundred years after Julius Caesar, who was among other thing the high priest of Rome, proposed life imprisonment instead of the death penalty on the ground that no one believed in the gods. I would think it would be reasonable to say Pliny was at best extremely lax in his beliefs.

Another good point, but Pliny, but even IF he was lax in his believe I am sure that many of the people including the rulers were not. And with them being not so lax I am sure that they wouldn't like very well Unicorns and other creatures being taken out. I admit I did not read about the Satyrs and Dragons, but what I read from Natural History was based on people "sighting" of the Unicorns, which I take about as seriously as ghost sighting. (I don't know if you believe in ghosts or not but as the rest of my posts mean no disrespect, but my point would be better if you didn't) Not even his own. This does not prove that I am right or that you are right, and we will still have to go on the either you believe it or you don't concept.
I do not claim to have all of the answers but I do believe the answer are out there. I happened to have an answer for all of the questions on here and a couple were a bit of a challenge, but the BIG BIG question though that I am surprised wasn't brought up in this list is "Where did everything begin" I don't mean from the Big Bang because even that had to start from somewhere. And there are some "theories" about this that I have read but none that really sell me. I just have to go off of my "faith" that science will have an answer eventually, even long after I am dead.

What exactly is the evolutionary advantage of dying? Bacteria, fungi, several sorts of plants and other beings don't die of old age, why did evolution make us die if no one wants to die?

Another fantastic question, and I will do some research before answering....
I found a lot of different information on this and some of it was a little bit conflicting (also not the greatest sources) but I do believe I have come to found a good answer, and I am summarizing to keep it somewhat short.
Basically, cells have a finite lifespan to them, as you grow your cells die and divide. But eventually your cells can't handle the division anymore and your body begins to fail. Technically you don't die of old age but you do die to complications because your cells simply can't support your body any longer. Even IF you were to live in a sterilized room with no harm coming to your body from any outside source (accidents, disease, infection, ect) , your bodies organs will slowly fail over time regardless and you will die. This happens similarly to trees as well but a bit different. Trees technically do not die of old age since they do not have organs that they need to sustain life like humans do, but other things inside of a tree necessary to protect it from outside fungus, or disease, will die and the tree will die due to those reasons.
That was the short version, nobody, including myself wants to go into great detail. and the other part of the question of why evolution hasn't found an answer for this....
It is actually rather advantageous for beings to die, because if nothing died then everything would simply reproduce until the earths resources or consumed, but death keeps a balance. In fact if there is a purpose of living I would say that it is to reproduce to keep your species going, and pass on your DNA to future generations.

And lastly

I often hear that some of the rules in the Bible are cruel and perhaps they are. But it seems all nice and fluffy compared to having it your way.

Which I believe is why the vast majority of the people in the world are religious in some way and not Atheists, even people I have met that believe as I do that there is a scientific answer for everything also believe that there is some sort of higher being or an afterlife. The thought of this being it is not a fun one, and is difficult for people to accept. I believe peoples fear of death is what makes religion so powerful for people, because they need to believe there is more to life. Animals are to stupid to really understand death as we do, only that they don't want to do it, which explains why we don't see a frog Christ or something .

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Which I believe is why the vast majority of the people in the world are religious in some way and not Atheists, even people I have met that believe as I do that there is a scientific answer for everything also believe that there is some sort of higher being or an afterlife. The thought of this being it is not a fun one, and is difficult for people to accept. I believe peoples fear of death is what makes religion so powerful for people, because they need to believe there is more to life.

Interesting perspective. I find it amazing that you, even realizing all this, still conclude that God does not exist. This is not meant to insult you, but in a way I pity you. It must be hard to believe your soul will vanish when you die and that you will be completely forgotten, making your life completely meaningless. A life without purpose, somehow I can not imagine how that would work.

[A Follower]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Another fantastic question, and I will do some research before answering....
I found a lot of different information on this and some of it was a little bit conflicting (also not the greatest sources) but I do believe I have come to found a good answer, and I am summarizing to keep it somewhat short.
Basically, cells have a finite lifespan to them, as you grow your cells die and divide. But eventually your cells can't handle the division anymore and your body begins to fail. Technically you don't die of old age but you do die to complications because your cells simply can't support your body any longer. Even IF you were to live in a sterilized room with no harm coming to your body from any outside source (accidents, disease, infection, ect) , your bodies organs will slowly fail over time regardless and you will die. This happens similarly to trees as well but a bit different. Trees technically do not die of old age since they do not have organs that they need to sustain life like humans do, but other things inside of a tree necessary to protect it from outside fungus, or disease, will die and the tree will die due to those reasons.
That was the short version, nobody, including myself wants to go into great detail. and the other part of the question of why evolution hasn't found an answer for this....
It is actually rather advantageous for beings to die, because if nothing died then everything would simply reproduce until the earths resources or consumed, but death keeps a balance. In fact if there is a purpose of living I would say that it is to reproduce to keep your species going, and pass on your DNA to future generations.

You make a number of claims, but none of them seems to be based on logic or reality. All you do is blindly repeat scientist dogma. Please don't just look up on the internet what those heretics claim, look at world around you! It's marvelous, it's ingenious and it could only be created by a superior being: God!

You claim:

1. cells have an intrinsic quality that limits their age and the amount of times they can divide;
2. cells die and divide;
3. evolution hasn't found an answer to death;
4. not dying would result in overuse of resources, and is thus necessary to keep a balance;

All of these claims are wrong.

1. Bacteria have lived since the beginning of time, over 6000 years in total, never dying, just dividing. Some human cells, like skin cells and cells lining the intestines, can divide thousands of time in a human lifetime, while others can only divide a small number of times before they die. Even reproductive cells are created by division, if there was a limit to the amount of divisions a cell could survive, then there logically should be a limit to the number of human generations, but reality shows there isn't such a limit. All this put together shows that only cells that are expected to live to a certain age are limited to a number of divisions, other cells will keep dividing as necessary. Someone has programmed them to die at a specific point in time.
   .
2. Cells don't die during division or before.
   .
3. Evolution does have answers to death, look at bacteria, look at certain plants that stay alive forever, look at fungi that stay alive forever. The most primitive forms of life, even according to evolutionism, don't die, while more "evolved" species do, so if evolution were true then there has to be a reason why death was introduced.
   .
4. It hardly matters whether or not parents die after they've had children. A group of 50 married couples with 8 children per couple per generation would after 20 generations have 110 trillion offspring without parents living, if all previous generations stayed alive it would be about 145 trillion. Either way that's far more humans than can live in that single tiny village, in reality the village might have grown to maybe a thousand people after 20 generations. Death through old age is cause of only one quarter of all death, so obviously there are other ways population growth is stopped besides death through old age. If all those other deaths were caused through accidents etc, then according to evolution the couples would simply have more children to compensate, so that's not the problem, so either God smites all of them or the reason why so many people would die is because of lack of resources. Another example: one year there might be a lot of mice, so owls will have an easy time feeding on them, there will be more owls the next year, this will kill too many mice and another year later the owls will starve and the cycle starts again. By using either logic or by looking around you you can see that life already uses all resources it can claim, the balance is enforced by resource availability, so death through old age is not the evolutionary answer to that problem. Also if death was the limiting factor then it would simply be the non-dying species that use up all resources.

Scientists make up lots of these claims, but they have secluded themselves in their ivory towers, they are unwilling or unable to look at the ever changing world around them, so their beliefs can never match up with reality. Only by looking at the fundamental truth underlying life, this world and the universe can you begin to understand why and how it works. This fundamental truth is not hidden in the difficult words (e.g. telomerase) scientists prefer to use so as to stay incomprehensible to the lay person, it's not spread out over millions of issues of peer reviewed scientific journals (b.t.w., peer review means scientists leave out any knowledge that conflicts with their world view like Christian science), God has provided it to us all in one book: the King James 1611 Bible: read it and understand everything!

[filip]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Here is some questions for the scientific theocrats of the Darwinist Gestapo to try and answer;

Account for the missing land sharks
If we evolved from fish, why haven’t sharks, who according to your theory predate us, evolved into land animals and are hunting us?


Are you playing stupid on purpose? All land animals, including those who occasionaly feed on humans, and deffinatly would feed on you when you bring a bible instead of a rifle into the woods... Also evolved from sea living organisms.


Explain floods on Mars with out the Great Flood of the Bible
If Noah’s flood didn’t happen then how do explain the evidence of a great flood on Mars?[/


Tell that to the people who burned people for claiming that there was other planets.

Anyhow, just because there once was liquids on Mars, why does that mean that the earth was once flooded. No logic there. Because the sun is yellow, why am I not?


Account for fools
If evolution is survival of the fittest then how do explain the continued survival of unsuccessful groups of stupid humans?


Define unsuccessful groups of stupid humans? I'm starting to doubt evolution simply because of the giant number of religions humans on the planet.


Explain why human's aren't perfect
If we are evolving why don’t we have third arms now?



Try ramming a third arm and shoulder into your ribcage. I'll give you 10 bucks if you can make it work. Don't blame me if you die.

Evolution is not designed to give man 3 arms.


Explain infant murder
If we are evolved to nature our young then how do you secular humanist explain your groups pathological desire to kill yours with abortions?


We should all be like christians and camly kill the adults instead right?

Anyhow, most people take care of their young. That's why it works. There is always exceptions.


Why no bodies?
If humanity was roughly a million people living at one time. If the human race is 150,000 years old like you maintain that means there have been 150,000,000,000 who lived before the current era. If each corpse takes up 3 by 6 feet then that means the remains of human ancestors cover 1350 billion square feet of the earth! Why are we not buried under the remains of 150 billion people?


Because corpses decompose as microbes and sponges devour them, and convert them into earth. This question is just stupid. I mean, you don't see cow corpses everywhere do you?


Were do angels and demons fit into the Evolutionist tree of life?
Please explain the earliest common ancestor with all animals, angles and demons. What is their ancestry and transitional form?


Fictional figments of desert tribesmens imagination. Since these beings are not real, they are not part of the rational though that is evolution.



Explain talking snake in the garden threw evolution.
Please tell me when serpents lost the power of speech and the process with which it happened. Please include any fossil of impaired speech snakes.


Yay, using fictional Bible to enforce your ideas. Newsflash, the Bible is a bunch of stories, it never happened. Snakes could never speak, hence they never "lost" this ability.


Explain the Loch Ness Monster threw evolution.
I find it hard to believe that a whole species can sustain itself from so few individuals as observed in Loch Ness. Sounds like a hole in your theory to me


But the Loch Ness Monster is fictional, just like the God Ganeesh with an elephant head and four arms.



If evolution is true, then why don't trees stretch up to the stratosphere?
Scientists say that trees grow taller and taller because natural selection forces them to compete for light with other trees. However, they have supposedly had hundreds of millions of years to evolve, but the tallest tree in the world is a mere 370 feet tall.

If evolution were true, we should be living in pitch dark, because the entire troposphere would be encased in a big sheet of tree leaves. Asked by Pastor Billy-Rueben


Because trees doesn't magically spring out of the ground. You need alot of things to grow a tree. To grow a tree thousands of feet high you'd need enormous amount of resources and water in a very small area. Natural areas doesn't have this, hence trees can't grow that big.


Even if they could it would take thousands of years, and they would have to endure horrible assults from not only elements as 300 feet/second winds and lightning, but an assult of all tree feeding lifeforms for several millenia.


Besides, you need not to reach the stratosphere, only outgrow the other trees.


Why don't we act like monkeys
If we are evolved from monkeys why do we behave like them; service our selves constantly an throw our feces about? Asked by Eight or Better


Our higher devoloped brains allow us to form the more complex morals that our societies needed.


Why are there still monkey?
Evolution predicts the stronger species (humans) would crush and exterminate the weaker species(monkeys) it evolved from. Asked by ChristianSoldier


Because monkies live in trees, they are no competition for humans and as such we have no need to outcompete them. Evolution doesn't claim that one species is going for dominance by total eradication of everything else.


Please account for quick extinctions.
According to evolution theory it takes millions of years for a species to go extinct. Yet we have examples of species dying out in a few hunderd years like the Dodo. Please account for this.


Evolution doesn't claim that species die out slowly.


Were are ancestors and fossilizes remains of the dragon, satyr and unicorn?
I would say the lack of fossils for these three creatures presents a clear gap in the record.


All these creatures are fictional. They are made up by desert tribesmen. It's like me saying, drill a deep enough hole and you'll find the turtle shell wich the whole world rests uppon. Hence the religions of old are correct and the Bible is wrong (on yet another point)


Why are no human ancestors mentioned in The Bible?
The very fact that Neandertals, Homo-Erectuces are not mentioned in The Bible proves they are made up. I mean you would think God would have mentioned them 6,000 years ago when He wrote The Bible. duh.


The mortal men who wrote the Bible had no knowledge of pre-homo sapiens sapiens humanoids and couldn't include them in the Bible. It's simple as that.


Explain wasps with evolution.
Wasp paralyze spiders and then implant their young in them to feed on living, but helpless insect. If evolution was true them spiders would have anti-wasp poison in their blood. But they don’t. The only way you can get such a horrific death as those countless spiders suffer is threw the power of God.



But by that logic the wasps would just evolve a new venom that worked on the spiders. This is happening in the real world, all species are in an "arms-race" that's pretty much the essence of evolution. Nice question there!


How could Cain could procreate with his sisters if evolution was true?
If can was getting busy with his sister like The Bible relates then the human race should be a race of inbreed deformities like the English Royal Family. Instead we see the general population is healthy. This can only happen if Cain and his sister were of the pure first generation after Adam not corrupted by sins yet.


Because cain and his sister are all part of the fictional bible. You can't use parts of the story to reinforce it. Circular thinking is circular.

The flying spagetti monster created the world, the world exists, hence the flying spagetti monster exists.

Man slowly evolved over time, that's why we are not all inbreed.


The Genealogy of Henry III
The "Evidence From Genealogy" display, donated by Edgar Nurnberg, is one of the more favorite displays of our visitors. These scrolls from the Lambeth Palace in England trace the genealogy of King Henry the 6th back to Adam and Eve.
Asked by Heathen Basher 8/18/09



I could make one of those aswell. Point?


Unicorn Horns
What so-called "evoloutionary role" does the horn on a unicorn play? I was taught evolutionary theory, and I can't figure it out! Asked by H. Montague Worthington's 8/24/09


There are no unicorns, and there has most likley never been any. They are fictional creatures. Hence, they are not explained by evolution. Besides, there are many horned animals, the horns "could" have been used for self-defence, or mating rutiuals/competition.


Transitional fossils for single celled organism.
The Darwinists would have us believe that life evolved from single-celled organisms to more complicated forms. If that's true, then we should expect to see intermediaries between organisms with one cell and organisms with millions/billions/trillions of cells, but that's exactly what we don't see. Where are all the two-celled organisms that we should see if evolution was true? Where are all the five-celled organisms or twelve-celled organisms? Are we supposed to believe that 50 million amoebas randomly assembled into a fully formed flatworm by chance? Asked by Pastor Billy-Reuben. 8/25/09


There are plenty of cases with many 1 cell organisms gathering together, a few cells gathering together, and just a few celltypes gathering together. If groups of cells work, there is no reason for 2, 3, 4 and so on cellgroups if 40000000+ works better. Besides, these older outdated organisms might have died out if they existed.


Why is there still mud?
Darwinists claim that life originate in mud. If you really believe that a big pile of mud turned into a fish, which sprouted legs and arms and turned into monkeys, which turned into human beings, then you're more stupid than I thought. For a start, if that's true, why's there still mud around, and why do babies not have tails like monkeys when they're born? Asked by Rachel Pierce 11/4/09


Oh dear. No wonder people are still dumb enough to belive.

Okay, here is the deal. Because monkeys and humans indeed share the same tailed ancestor it doesn't mean humans should be born with tails. We did indeed have tails a great deal of thousands of years ago. However when tails were no longer usefull we slowly lost them, along with fur and geels and whatnot.

We still have the genetics for tails, the fetus has a tail for several weeks.


Why don't chemicals think?
If our brains are just a mishmash of biochemistry, how come chemicals like gasoline or bug spray can't think? Rev. Jim Osborne 1/11/10


So if I shoot you in the head you should be fine right? Because you're a spirit inhabiting a soulless and useless husk? Bring it on.

Really, because not all chemical mixtures can think.


Why don't we have natural clothing?
People have been wearing clothes for thousands of years. Why haven't our bodies evolved natural clothes that come out of our skin then? Rev. Jim Osborne 1/11/10


Because the climate where humans originaly evolved (Africa) is warm enough to live in without clothing. All year round.

Well evolutionist, please give it your best shot. Even one question will be helpful. I look forward to your answers.

Best I could do. Didin't bother to read all the previous pages. Feel free to ask for details where needed.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Are you playing stupid on purpose? All land animals, including those who occasionaly feed on humans, and deffinatly would feed on you when you bring a bible instead of a rifle into the woods... Also evolved from sea living organisms..

Your answers are disqualified because of personal attacks.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Best I could do. Didin't bother to read all the previous pages. Feel free to ask for details where needed.

Ever heard of hyperlinks? Why are you polluting our friendly forum with your crap? Please leave. Now!

[filip]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Your answers are disqualified because of personal attacks.

Well, I'm sorry. But it does seam slighly wierd that you got this "reply to this evolutionists if you can" thread, and if I do, I get some warnings for not spreading the message of the Bible?


If we are not allowed to debate, why put it here at all?

Besides, just because it contains personal attacks it doesn't make my arguments or replies invalid.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Well, I'm sorry. But it does seam slighly wierd that you got this "reply to this evolutionists if you can" thread, and if I do, I get some warnings for not spreading the message of the Bible?


If we are not allowed to debate, why put it here at all?

Besides, just because it contains personal attacks it doesn't make my arguments or replies invalid.

How can we debate when you insist on dragging in "facts" from a theory in crises already discredited by the Discover Institute friend?