[_ Old Earth _] What those who endorse evolution igore

[Heidi]

Apparently you still don't grasp that the definition of a species shifts with the frame of reference.

: You mean the truth changes with the seasons. : Sorry friend, but truth can never contradicts itself or it wouldn't be the truth. So what you're really saying is that scientists change their stories when the previous ones contradict their previous statements or reality. I'll agree with that. ;-) But that's what lies do. They always contradict the first lie and result in contradictory stories. So lies aren't hard to spot by everyone but the liar. ;-)

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I have never read or been told a reasonaible answear to the OP's points.

Maybe because the OP's points are unreasonable and trollish.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Apparently you still don't grasp that the definition of a species shifts with the frame of reference.

dude, just look at her previous posts. Same thing over and over. Same lines over and over. She gets answered each time and then flips to something else ignoring the answer. Shes not here to actually debate. I am quite surprised she is still allowed to post here.

 

[jwu]

Lots of cognitive dissonance going on there...

 

[Heidi]

Apparently you still don't grasp that the definition of a species shifts with the frame of reference.

dude, just look at her previous posts. Same thing over and over. Same lines over and over. She gets answered each time and then flips to something else ignoring the answer. Shes not here to actually debate. I am quite surprised she is still allowed to post here.

Actually, there's nothing to debate since those who endorse evolution have no non-contradictory answers to my questions. So yes, I just come and post the truth since your only "rebuttals" are personal attacks. Well sorry, but your personal attacks can't take away your contradictions any more than they answer unanswered questions. Therefore they're unwarranted.

 

[John]

Why would a cataclysmis event disfigure a whole bunch of bones of multiple specimen in the same way? How would it disfigure them at all in first instance? Bones tend to break, not to bend...

Why would such a process leave them pretty much intact and nicely assembled as a skeleton in one location, instead of crushing them and scattering them over hundreds of square miles?

Not sure, i just wanted an explanation, thanks. moving on.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Apparently you still don't grasp that the definition of a species shifts with the frame of reference.

dude, just look at her previous posts. Same thing over and over. Same lines over and over. She gets answered each time and then flips to something else ignoring the answer. Shes not here to actually debate. I am quite surprised she is still allowed to post here.

Actually, there's nothing to debate since those who endorse evolution have no non-contradictory answers to my questions. So yes, I just come and post the truth since your only "rebuttals" are personal attacks. Well sorry, but your personal attacks can't take away your contradictions any more than they answer unanswered questions. Therefore they're unwarranted.

There is no debate because you do not start one. You just state obviously innacurate statements in an attempt to be colorful

"Humans don't produce zebra, therefore evolution is false! har har."

These are the tactics used 20 years ago.

At least get up to date :-D

 

[John]

1) That animals can't breed humans any more than humans breed animals
2) The pictures that Johnmuise showed of the sketches that evolutionary scientists draw from one tooth or bone fragment.
3) Why humans don't breed zebras
4) That no one in history can document their ape ancestors
5) The impossible odds of thousands of animals being given the exact same genes
6) The affects that a flood can have on disfiguring skulls and bones
7) All other possibilities for the shape and looks of skulls and bones except one; that apes turned into humans.
8) The inaccuracies of their dating methods which is why they're constantly trying to improve them
9) The fact that one has to know how much radiation is in each generation in order for carbon dating to be accurate
10) That there's no way to prove that a species was covered in hair without the hair fibers to prove it.
11) That there's no way to prove what color eyes these beasts had unless someone wrote an account of them.
12) That there's no way to prove what kind of skin these creatures or even dinosaurs had without samples of it
13) That there's no way to prove what these creatures wore without their clothing
14) That there's no way to calculate how many of these creatures walked the earth from only a few skulls and bones
15) And last but not least, the missing link which has always been missing and always will be. So there's no way to know what this fictitious beast bred because they don't know what he looked like, who he was, or where he lived.

The inaccuracies of their dating methods which is why they're constantly trying to improve them lets do this one, although this one may as well require a new thread.

 

[Heidi]

There is no debate because you do not start one. You just state obviously innacurate statements in an attempt to be colorful

"Humans don't produce zebra, therefore evolution is false! har har."

These are the tactics used 20 years ago.

At least get up to date :-D[/quote]

It appears that you're another one who doesn't know why humans and animals can't breed each other. : : But that's okay, I forgive your ignorance.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

1) That animals can't breed humans any more than humans breed animals
2) The pictures that Johnmuise showed of the sketches that evolutionary scientists draw from one tooth or bone fragment.
3) Why humans don't breed zebras
4) That no one in history can document their ape ancestors
5) The impossible odds of thousands of animals being given the exact same genes
6) The affects that a flood can have on disfiguring skulls and bones
7) All other possibilities for the shape and looks of skulls and bones except one; that apes turned into humans.
8) The inaccuracies of their dating methods which is why they're constantly trying to improve them
9) The fact that one has to know how much radiation is in each generation in order for carbon dating to be accurate
10) That there's no way to prove that a species was covered in hair without the hair fibers to prove it.
11) That there's no way to prove what color eyes these beasts had unless someone wrote an account of them.
12) That there's no way to prove what kind of skin these creatures or even dinosaurs had without samples of it
13) That there's no way to prove what these creatures wore without their clothing
14) That there's no way to calculate how many of these creatures walked the earth from only a few skulls and bones
15) And last but not least, the missing link which has always been missing and always will be. So there's no way to know what this fictitious beast bred because they don't know what he looked like, who he was, or where he lived.

The inaccuracies of their dating methods which is why they're constantly trying to improve them lets do this one, although this one may as well require a new thread.

Again your never going to get a proper debate. These statement show an extremely poor understanding of evolution, and science really. No one really wants to debate with someone who hasn't even taken the time to learn the subject matter.

So, these are either trollish in nature, or from people who really need to go back to square one and learn more about the topic.

Missing link?? seriously.

 

[jwu]

The inaccuracies of their dating methods which is why they're constantly trying to improve them

That will require a new thread indeed.

Note that trying to improve dating methods does not imply that they are grossly inaccurate - it also can mean that one tries to reduce the margin of error from e.g. +-5% to +-1%.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

There is no debate because you do not start one. You just state obviously innacurate statements in an attempt to be colorful

"Humans don't produce zebra, therefore evolution is false! har har."

These are the tactics used 20 years ago.

At least get up to date :-D

It appears that you're another one who doesn't know why humans and animals can't breed each other. : : But that's okay, I forgive your ignorance. [/quote]

Humans are animals. Therefore each time a baby is conceived your'e provin wrong ;p

Do you mean why different species can't breed?

Because thats one of the main definitions of a species silly - A population that can breed fertile offspring.

When two animals can no longer breed fertile offspring together, they are classified as a different species. So the answer is in the definition ;p

Didn't you learn this in Junior High?

 

[Heidi]

There is no debate because you do not start one. You just state obviously innacurate statements in an attempt to be colorful

"Humans don't produce zebra, therefore evolution is false! har har."

These are the tactics used 20 years ago.

At least get up to date :-D

It appears that you're another one who doesn't know why humans and animals can't breed each other. : : But that's okay, I forgive your ignorance.

Humans are animals. Therefore each time a baby is conceived your'e provin wrong ;p

Do you mean why different species can't breed?

Because thats one of the main definitions of a species silly - A population that can breed fertile offspring.

When two animals can no longer breed fertile offspring together, they are classified as a different species. So the answer is in the definition ;p

Didn't you learn this in Junior High?[/quote]

So if you call us animals, then humans have always bred only humans, haven't we? Creationists have always known that. But evolutionists tell such lies that they end up contradicting themselves incessantly. :roll: Or do you claim we're an animal of a species other than human? :o : : If so, then you contradict your own words and reality as well. Either way, your theory falls flat on its face because you contradict your own words!

Sorry but your personal attacks don't take away your contradictions which are plain as day. ;-)

 

[VaultZero4Me]

So if you call us animals, then humans have always bred only humans, haven't we? Creationists have always known that. But evolutionists tell such lies that they end up contradicting themselves incessantly. Or do you claim we're an animal of a species other than human? If so, then you contradict your own words and reality as well. Either way, your theory falls flat on its face because you contradict your own words!

Sorry but your personal attacks don't take away your contradictions which are plain as day.

You started it with "I'll forgive your ignorance." from there I saw it open season on personal attacks.

And the above quoted absolutely makes no sence.

Really go study speciation and understand the processes going on there. Learn, read, study, discuss. I implore you.

 

[Heidi]

So if you call us animals, then humans have always bred only humans, haven't we? Creationists have always known that. But evolutionists tell such lies that they end up contradicting themselves incessantly. Or do you claim we're an animal of a species other than human? If so, then you contradict your own words and reality as well. Either way, your theory falls flat on its face because you contradict your own words!

Sorry but your personal attacks don't take away your contradictions which are plain as day.

You started it with "I'll forgive your ignorance." from there I saw it open season on personal attacks.

And the above quoted absolutely makes no sence.

Really go study speciation and understand the processes going on there. Learn, read, study, discuss. I implore you.

Unfortunately, I've studied evolution for longer than you've probably been alive. And the more I studied it, the more ludicrous impossible and contradictory it demonstrated itself to be.

You can call humans apes, but if you claim we came from human apes, then humans have always bred only humans. So it's pointless to call humans apes. Any child can see the difference between apes and humans. But not evolutionists. :

 

[John]

its like hovinds example of the dog,wolf.coyote and banana

 

[VaultZero4Me]

So if you call us animals, then humans have always bred only humans, haven't we? Creationists have always known that. But evolutionists tell such lies that they end up contradicting themselves incessantly. Or do you claim we're an animal of a species other than human? If so, then you contradict your own words and reality as well. Either way, your theory falls flat on its face because you contradict your own words!

Sorry but your personal attacks don't take away your contradictions which are plain as day.

You started it with "I'll forgive your ignorance." from there I saw it open season on personal attacks.

And the above quoted absolutely makes no sence.

Really go study speciation and understand the processes going on there. Learn, read, study, discuss. I implore you.

Unfortunately, I've studied evolution for longer than you've probably been alive. And the more I studied it, the more ludicrous impossible and contradictory it demonstrated itself to be.

You can call humans apes, but if you claim we came from human apes, then humans have always bred only humans. So it's pointless to call humans apes. Any child can see the difference between apes and humans. But not evolutionists. :

All I can say is LOL.

My 9 yr old niece has a better grasp on ToE than you do.

You have not said one thing that would make me think you had the slightest clue about what ToE is, and heck, I myself am just barely a novice.

Either your studying consisted of watching Dr. Hovind videos or thats not true.

 

[Heidi]

All I can say is LOL.

My 9 yr old niece has a better grasp on ToE than you do.

You have not said one thing that would make me think you had the slightest clue about what ToE is, and heck, I myself am just barely a novice.

Either your studying consisted of watching Dr. Hovind videos or thats not true.[/quote]

You and your 9 year old niece only learn what the teachers tell you. ;-) And since they're telling you lies about your origins, then neither one of you knows as much as I do. And since you blindly follow scientists, then they can say that we were the descendants of a fictitious animal and you believe them. : I know why humans can't breed animals as descendants any more than animals can't breed humans as descendants which is something neither you nor your 9 year old niece knows. Sorry. ;-)

 

[VaultZero4Me]

All I can say is LOL.

My 9 yr old niece has a better grasp on ToE than you do.

You have not said one thing that would make me think you had the slightest clue about what ToE is, and heck, I myself am just barely a novice.

Either your studying consisted of watching Dr. Hovind videos or thats not true.

You and your 9 year old niece only learn what the teachers tell you. ;-) And since they're telling you lies about your origins, then neither one of you knows as much as I do. And since you blindly follow scientists, then they can say that we were the descendants of a fictitious animal and you believe them. : I know why humans can't breed animals as descendants any more than animals can't breed humans as descendants which is something neither you nor your 9 year old niece knows. Sorry. ;-)[/quote]

Translation:

I have no idea what I am talking about so I just say silly things that make myself laugh.

 

[Dunzo]

See for yourself (Heidi=Carico):
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.or ... hp?t=37280

Dear god, she's a thousand times worse than I thought.