posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 05:44 PM
Seriously, I have been reeding through this forrum and their arr sow meny peeple who towtally thinnk that evulotion is reel, they arr ignoring soo
much evidence frum peeple like Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort, who have yused REEL SCIUNCE to PROOVE that it is a compleet fabbrickation, sow HOW can
peeple still be seying that evulotion is reel?
Four starts, Ray Comfort is SOOO rite wen he compairs the domustic banana to a pepsi can, it is so towtally the same - do thees evulotionists thinnk
that the domustic banana just evulved to be shaped to fit in the human hand, and alsow, the fruit is completely unfertile, and so wat whould bee the
point of it evulving to make a unfertile fruit if it was nott for humans in the furst plaice?
Also, Kent Hovind is a proffesor of sciunce, and so if anywun is going too no that evulotion is a LIE, it is going to be him, not sum stupid
evulotionist that never eevun went too skhool. There is absulottly NO prooff four evulotion, well maybe micro, but nun at all for macro evulotion,
which is just a LIE beleeved ownly by ineducaited peeple, I have lived on a farm MY HOLE LIFE, with all ov my famly - who buy the way nun of them are
munkeys - and I have seen menny sheep giving burth to MOOR SHEEP, nevver to lions or giraffes or sum other evulotionist bs.
If enny evulotionists reed this, pleese explane to me how it is that yoo can thinnk that evulotion is reel when it is so clearly a complete