Not only have I provided pictures and information straight from that website a number of times on this forum in various threads, but given the link attached and encouraged people to view the many others available. You have had repeated opportunities to view the MANY fossils available with a link provided for your convenience. Instead, you googled whatever negative press/mistakes you could possibly find in order to colour the entire website based upon some discovered fossil errors. This is not an honest, nor fair portrayal and does the website an injustice based upon the many and varied fine examples presented.
I wrote a previous post about what was said there about trilobites, though CTD for some reason doesn't believe that I'm being honest about what Yahya's site said. It's OK though. These are all beautiful pictures of fossils which clearly prove that these animals have never changed and evolution never happened. One has to forgive the odd mistake, everybody makes mistakes.
Have we observed any change to be significant enough to cause one kind of animal into another? Can you give me an example of an animal we have observed that this has or is happening to? Speculations on extinct species does not count as evidence, nor the painted scenarios that go with them. Nor is variation within kinds acceptable to use an explanation of the evolution of all life on earth.
Indeed, dogs don't give birth to cats and we don't see evolution happening
anywhere today, despite what scientists claim. And all the changes we've ever seen have already been programmed into genes.
How many times must it be pointed out to you that variation/adaption does not mean that one kind of animal has become another. Even the vast periods of time have not made that a reality. Even selective breeding hasn't made this a reality, yet you insist it happened in spite of a lack of evidence.
Indeed, you have been very patient in reminding me over and over. I don't know what I was thinking.
You have also criticised ones lack of credentials such as Kent Hovind and the fossil museum site owner, yet Charles Darwin was an average theologian not known to be brillaint. Most emphatically he was NOT a trained scientist! Even Kent Hovind has a doctorate in education! And the fossil museum site owner? Doesn't rely on cartoons or charts as evidence, he presents real life fossils displaying incredible stasis despite the vast periods of time they have had to "evolve". The attempts to put down his website, his reputation and character are, I'd imagine is hardly an isolated tactic that we've seen on this forum.
Yes. Darwin was ignorant and Yahya and Hovind clearly tell us what the real truth is. I was blind, deluded.
I am also the conniving, stupid, time-wasting piece of crap that CTD has always treated me as. I believed everything I was told by evolutionism-ists without question and preached it myself in order to delude others. I have been in error.
Anything else you'd like me to agree with while I'm in Room 101, I will. OK? This is my last post here. Enjoy.
