A person's credentials have little to do with their capacity for common sense. In fact, I've know a lot of people with PhD's and have found that a larger percentage of them have much less common sense than the typical home business owner.
My comments were mostly about Hovind's egregious and laughable errors concerning such concepts as the conservation of momentum and the second law of thermodynamics, non his credentials.
People have to learn to think for themselves rather then to simply accept what they're told, as in the education system.
True....maybe 2+2 actually equals 5
Hovind produces some of the most enlightening information available on the evolution hoax (hence, he is hated by religious-evolutionist fanatics), yet scientists still can't figure out why no transitional forms have been found.
Fossils have been found that are classified as transitional organisms between classes of animals. Your claim that they have not would require you to actually discredit the organisms that have been credited as such.
I did...again. While it wasn't as funny as the first time, since I knew all the punch lines, it still made me laugh. I've already commented to Bex concerning the baloney he puts out in the video.
Yet failed to point to even one.
All I'm asking you to do is to lift a finger.
Is your search engine broken or are we avoiding "difficult" information?
Actually, I have provided links previously but you ignored them.
did not! I have searched and the only videos I find supporting your point of view contain so many errors of basic science that I find it difficult to believe these folks are scientists. Wearing a lab coat doesn't make a person an expert on anything. Wearing a lab coat and stating the stupid mistakes that are consistent with Hovind-like presenters, just hurts your cause.
I'm still waiting for you to respond to the reason you claim my math is off at the top of this post.
Which post? You mean in the Mathematically Absurd: Positively Ridiculous thread?
What questions were those 2 paleontologists asked? Some transitional forms are more difficult to find because the transition is small. Transitionals between large taxonomic groups do exist. The Whale transitionals are a good example of the transition from land to sea creature despite the relatively close relationship.
You should know that this is just more of the same empty and baseless evolution-religion talk.
Then discredit the classification of those fossils as transitional.
There are no whale transitions. C'mon, give us a link. Please!
Is your search engine broken or are we avoiding "difficult" information?
And so you believe that evolution has been going on for billions of years yet we're still having trouble finding transitional forms?
No...transitional forms have been found. At least fossils have been found in the right layers and with the correct morphology.
You really have to open your eyes man.
Open them for me by presenting a valid refuting of the classified whale transitional fossils as transitional forms.
If you studied the Bible as hard as you claim to study evolution, you would realize that those who were killed by Israel were "put under the ban" because they had committed horrific crimes against humanity on a vast scale, and God knew they were only going to continue this activity.
I believe all of those put under the ban during the conquering of Israel were tribes of the giants (nephilim):
See:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M0018whatever.
An example of defense is this. You come into my house with a gun acting as if you're going to murder me, therefore, I have a right to kill you to defend my life. That's Biblical law.
Verse please.
(Exodus 22:2)
Thanks for the supporting evidence. Now that wasn't all that difficult, was it?
Are you really a Christian? Do you read the Bible daily?
I am not programmed to respond in that area!!
Sorry....I'm not talking about my faith here.
LinearAQ, you have failed to follow up on every point of evidence that I have brought up.
Saying it doesn't make it true.
You failed to address the math involved in this very thread.
Please point to your math in this thread. I just did a quick breeze through it and didn't find your math entry. I may have missed it though. I have addressed your math "proof" in the Mathematically Absurd: Positively Ridiculous thread. Would you like to go there again?
You continually let these vital flaws to the evolution religion go unanswered, yet, you continue to accuse me of the same.
How can I address these "vital flaws" if you refuse to provide evidence that they are even flaws at all? Show me how your assertions (or those of Hovind) are actually flaws to the theory of evolution.
At the top of this thread, I provided a strong argument for the fallacy of the evolution faith, and it continues to goes unanswered.
You took the definition of abiogenesis and then said it means
Simply stated, abiogenesis is the theory that rocks "evolve" into cells.
Then pronounced abiogenesis as ridiculous based on your first assertion as if that was all there was to it.
How is that a strong argument? What is it about the particular hypotheses put forth concerning the chemical reactions involved for abiogenesis that makes abiogenesis ridiculous?
What makes your "rocks to cells" categorization a valid representation of the hypotheses for abiogenesis?
I would welcome a real conversation if you would ever followup on any of these points.
What "points"? Your misrepresentation of the hypotheses for abiogenesis was a pathetic attempt to to win the approval of those people who were already in agreement with you. You couldn't possibly think that your baloney was going to convince anyone who had an inkling of how chemistry works...did you?
How was I supposed to have a real conversation about something as unreal as that baseless assertion?
