Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

OK.

Can you explain Ambulocetus natans please?

Or tiktaalik?

Wikipedia is your friend

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Similarly you don't offer proof that Jehovah is real, or indeed the only God. I believe in many (including your little Israelite one), I do not need to prove they are real, as I don't use them as a reason for ignoring the truth against the world

Did you want a star to your post
Whats the point of the comment

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Raggedyman


Where have I been shown the data
You sound very frustrated TD

I have seen no data, no evidence

I can wait patiently for any you may have

Wow! I sound frustrated? You can hear me? Well done.

You've been shown. Go look through your thread. It's here.

I've also noted you bash evolution and constantly say it's wrong yet have not once provided any evidence to prove it's wrong.

If science is so wrong, why haven't you died of polio or the plague?

Unlike you I love science, just not pseudo religiousy science like evolution

It seems you hate science, hate to have to explain it, justifyiy.

You atheists or whatever need science to justify your life, even corrupt it into something it is not and never will be, a faith

Star dirt and star water

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

OK.

Can you explain Ambulocetus natans please?

Or tiktaalik?

Wikipedia is your friend

Seriously? This thread is about evolution. I show the names of 2 things and ask you to explain them and you tell me to use Wikipedia?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Raggedyman


Where have I been shown the data
You sound very frustrated TD

I have seen no data, no evidence

I can wait patiently for any you may have

Wow! I sound frustrated? You can hear me? Well done.

You've been shown. Go look through your thread. It's here.

I've also noted you bash evolution and constantly say it's wrong yet have not once provided any evidence to prove it's wrong.

If science is so wrong, why haven't you died of polio or the plague?

Unlike you I love science, just not pseudo religiousy science like evolution

It seems you hate science, hate to have to explain it, justifyiy.

You atheists or whatever need science to justify your life, even corrupt it into something it is not and never will be, a faith

Star dirt and star water

You funny. No cookies for you.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

OK.

Can you explain Ambulocetus natans please?

Or tiktaalik?

Wikipedia is your friend

Seriously? This thread is about evolution. I show the names of 2 things and ask you to explain them and you tell me to use Wikipedia?

Ok evolutionist atheists believe they are a product os space dust and space water

Is that the answer you wanted

a reply to: Raggedyman

You again miss the point. Evolution is a no more a faith, that your faith is a science. Science adapts to evidence, faith is a belief, and a belief is felt, but unproven (often unprofitable). QED

a reply to: Raggedyman

Only the vain post things to get stars and or flagged If you don't get the point, that is where your poblem lies. But you wanted TD or someone to prove that Jehovah is false. Proving a negative is a little more difficult than proving a positive. Thus if you want someone to prove something is not so, you should, if you are being intellectually honest, be willing to prove that it IS so. Run along, and do that.

a reply to: Raggedyman

"You atheists", you keep missing the point. No all of those who agree that evolution is a valid scientific theory, are atheists. Yet that is your default argument each and every time.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

OK.

Can you explain Ambulocetus natans please?

Or tiktaalik?

Wikipedia is your friend

Seriously? This thread is about evolution. I show the names of 2 things and ask you to explain them and you tell me to use Wikipedia?

Ok evolutionist atheists believe they are a product os space dust and space water

Is that the answer you wanted

Those 2 animals are what you would call transitional animals.

No they didn't. You're correct in saying so.

a reply to: Noinden

No "science" makes "evidence". Science is just a "religion" of fools. Along with an ability to "discover" and manipulate things that already exist. I'd say they're kind of highly "educated" fools..."science" hasn't done more good, than folly.

a reply to: murphy22

I can see you are totally unbiased over this. Could you illustrate your thesis with evidence please Because otherwise you are just talking out of an orifice other than that which evolution or if you wish your deity has given you for that job.

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: Noinden

No "science" makes "evidence". Science is just a "religion" of fools. Along with an ability to "discover" and manipulate things that already exist. I'd say they're kind of highly "educated" fools..."science" hasn't done more good, than folly.

Says the person using a gadget, on a forum, on the Internet, using electricity all made by science.

a reply to: TerryDon79

TerryDon,.. Gadget? Yes...Internet? Yes. But electricity? No! Electricity was not "made" by "science". Electricity is a natural occurrence...and "manipulated"..or, harnessed.

a reply to: murphy22

Neighbour it would depend on how it is being generated for your use. Unless you are harnessing lightning right into your devices, science had a hand in it. Stop with the quibbling.

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: TerryDon79

TerryDon,.. Gadget? Yes...Internet? Yes. But electricity? No! Electricity was not "made" by "science". Electricity is a natural occurrence...and "manipulated"..or, harnessed.

Manipulated and harnessed by?

I'll give you a clue. It begins with s and ends in cience.

a reply to: Noinden

Proof? What "proof" would you believe? I'm not "unbiased". I don't have to be. But It's obvious, you aren't.

a reply to: murphy22

Then all you are stating is a belief, not facts then? Come now you made a broad sweeping statement about science. Back it up, or move along neighbour

No I am not unbiased, but I am also a deeply spiritual person, so I both understand the Gods, and science. I am biased to science and too mysticism. I can however speak to both, the question is can you? Beyond a short, statement of your beliefs to the OP, you have yet to talk to evolution. Back it up.

a reply to: TerryDon79

So we're back to men "seeking truth" (science)? Or you're just stuck on the word "science", because it sounds smart?... Sience is bassed on "observation"... If it wasn't "observed" it's just a "hypothesis". Which is nothing more than an "educated geuss. Which is nothing more than an idiots, "hypothesis" Don't BS me, the readers or yourself...