The New Anti-Science Assault on US Schools

There is that whirlpool again. Is that terricota iron?

 

I also say there is no such things as Unicorns, Leprechauns, Gnomes, etc, because there has never been once shred of evidence for them. Just the fanciful imaginations of human beings.

That still doesn't deter from the definition of Atheism

 

I understand it perfectly. I just see the holes in it. Its because I am honest enough to admit that I do not see the scientific connections that substantiates their assertion of their theory as being unassailable fact. Same with AGW, its the same shoddy science.

 

Ahh you cannot prove that the Invisible Pink Panda does not exist. Got it.

If its not faulty logic, then prove The visible Pink Panda doesn't exist

 

Back to the whirlpool analogy? It deters you're back peddling.

 

LOL

Showing your true colours? Ignorant as no one, fascist.

Who is not familiar with science is you? What do you think is science? LOL.

And theories of evolution? One is there. Just have been being added proofs as have been being discovered.

Ah, and that menace is absurd? Would you attack a country of the Europe Union? By what reasons? Because someone living in Finland made fun of the bunch of nonsense said from an extremist that have a lot of fatwa envy.

 

Let me know when you are ready to engage in an adult conversation.

 

Evolutuion of the whale:



that has plenty of fossils to back it up as evidence.

No holes. The only holes is the creatures of the mind your are creating due to your religious background.

 

And let me know when you want to stop being hypocritical.

You say its not faulty logic. Then prove it. Be an adult and prove your statement.

 

Thats proof? A cartoon? Then Buggs Bunny has redefined gravity and Quantum physics. Get real.

 

lol. those first five steps are quite a jump!

They know even less from fossil records than we can figure out today from humans bull(*)(*)(*)(*)ting other humans.

Forgive me if I think there may be errors in their interpretations.

 

How is being consistent and intellectually sound being "hypocritical"? The theory does not make sense and it does not substantiate eveolution. It is stated to substantiate evolution, but in reality it does not. Holes. Many.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0919_walkingwhale.html
Scientists have found fossil skeletons of two new species of primitive whales with well-developed limbs, fingers, and toes—supporting genetic evidence that hippos are the closest modern land-dwelling relatives to the giants of the sea.

It has long been known that whales are mammals that moved to the sea about 50 million years ago. But how they are related to other mammals is a controversial issue.

You can read more if you click on the link... By the way, this was back in 2001.

 

A cartoon?

You can easily take each species on that 'cartoon', look them up, and see the fossils we have and learn how one specie turns into the next on the 'cartoon'.

But instead you call it a cartoon and compare it to Buggs Bunny. Way to go. Way to even TRY to understand the evidence for Evolution

 

They say it supports it. Does it really? Really? Millons of years of seperation?

 

Imaginative transformations are quite different from actual transformations. Just saying.

 

Just to be clear... You think God creates every single person, animal, bacteria etc. Every single cell in the whole universe?

 

The theory doesnt make sense to you because you are unwilling to learn what evidence is, and how the evidence fits together.

Back to being hypocritical.

You said:

I said:

You replied:

If YOU think its possible to prove that a super natural creature does not exist, then prove the Invisible Pink Panda does not exist.

If you cannot, then don’t be hypocritical. How many more times will I have to explain to you?

 

No fatwa envy here, kusipää. I'm just laughing at you, as you live in your little world of religious devotion.

 

Not really..it happend over 40 million years.

 

Why don't you just man up, and provide evidence that there is no creator. It should be so VERY easy for such an astute scientific mind as yours.

So stop with all the BSing, and running in circles. Just man up, and prove that there is no creator.


And if you cannot do that (which you cannot), perhaps you should grow a pair, and admit that you're just as religious as the next guy. Maybe even more so.

 

Then is more logic believe that everything needs a creator? No?

Also humans and dinosaurs lived together.

 

Not according to the Religion of Evolution! Or at least one of the many that I was taught...

 

Bait! Hook! Line! Sinker! I'll pass.

Reverse psychology is better used on those who do not have the instincts to detect traps. The conversation diverted from religion to intellect.

 

Still can't prove that the Invisible Pink Panda doesn't exist I see. I wounder if you even get that you cannot prove the existence some super natural being.

Instead I get a rant. How nice.