Moderator: Community Team
Viceroy63 wrote:jonesthecurl wrote:Other than the accounts in the bible, which are not eye-witness accounts(and which are not exactly independent evidence anyway), do you have any historical sources for Jesus? Or any of the events of his life? I'm not asking you to prove that he is the way, the truth, the son of god, or anything else -just that he existed. I'm not even saying that he didn't, just that you have to prove that the evidence for his physical existence is "overwhelming".
"Overwhelming evidence" I believe you said.
btw, If you're going to count the AD/BC thing as proof, will you accept all other dating systems as proof of the events they commemorate?
oh, and incidentally you have the BC/AD dating wrong anyway.After his death on the cross and Before Christ existed!
See, you are misquoting me, yet again. It's just a slight wording or two but still it's enough to mislead the majority of the people in just the same way that Darwinists have misrepresented the fact and mislead the majority of the people right from preschool about the theory of evolution.
Now I will ask you to find that quote where I said. "the evidence for his physical existence is "overwhelming."" And then we can continue OK. Thank you.
This is the same tactic by the way, that evolutionist use to claim that the theory of evolution is true when it is not. OK. Thank You very much!
Oh and as many times as we need to go through this exercise, we will go through this exercise until we learn to speak the same language and use the same definitions for the same words that we use. Thank You.
In fact there is overwhelming historical and archeological evidence to support the stories of the Bible.
;Only God existed. Time and Space and Matter were all created things. Things which He created and from nothing brought into existence, the universe. Even Science agrees to that.
Viceroy63 wrote:Well Duhhhh! We count the years AD and BC, After his death on the cross and Before Christ existed!
Viceroy63 wrote:we will go through this exercise until we learn to speak the same language and use the same definitions for the same words that we use. Thank You.
Viceroy63 wrote:
(1) Human-like fossils have been found in rocks, caves, dry lakes, glaciers, and other sites
(2) Some fossils have been found inside caves, while others have been found near building remains
(3) These fossils have been found in different spots around the world
(4) These fossils have been found in a variety of rock types and at varying depths
(5) Most fossils have been found as scattered bits and pieces
(6) Only a tiny number of complete skeletons have been found
(7) There is a great deal of variety in these human-like fossils
(8) Tools that could have been made by humans have been found with many of these fossils
(9) The tools have been constructed of various materials - stone, bone, wood, antler and metal
(10) The age of fossils and materials older than recorded history (about 2,500 years) are not known
(11) Fossils and materials of unknown age have dates estimated using indirect methods
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
Viceroy63 wrote: The Top Four Reasons to believe in evolution or...
Why it takes much more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in an intelligent designer.
This article can be read in it's entirety at...
http://www.jameswatkins.com/evolution.htm
"Truth" 4: Evolution is possible over billions and billions of years
Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that you can toss a coin and have it come up heads 100 times in a row. But if you toss coins long enough, eventually it will happen. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.
"If you took all the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a billion years, the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be one chance in a 10 with 60 zeros after it. In other words, the odds for all practical purposes are zero. That's why even though some people who aren't educated in [molecular science and DNA research] still believe life emerged by chance, scientists simple don't believe it anymore."
Just because Darwin thought something doesn't make it fact, or even necessarily what scientists today believe.Viceroy63 wrote:-Walter L. Bradley, The Mystery of Life's Origin
"Truth" 3: Life began as simple, single-celled organisms
Darwin wrote his theory in the 19th century when it was believed that a cell was just "a homogeneous globule of protoplasm." They did not know about DNA or the complex processes that go on inside a cell. Today, we know that there is no such thing as a "simple" cell.
"Each cell in the human body contains more information than in all thirty volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. It's certainly reasonable to make the inference that this isn't the random product of unguided nature, but it's the unmistakable sign of an Intelligent Designer.
Viceroy63 wrote: -Walter L. Bradley, The Mystery of Life's Origin
Biochemist Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box) says that modern science has made the Darwinian explanation of the origin of complex life forms much less believable than it was in Darwin's day.In the 19th century, it was believed that a cell was just "a homogeneous globule of protoplasm." They did not know about DNA or the complex processes that go on inside a cell.
The book's central thesis is that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex" at the molecular level. Behe gives the following definition of irreducible complexity:
Behe starts with the example of a mousetrap; he claims that a standard mousetrap is "irreducibly complex". Such a mousetrap consists of:
(1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base
(2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing
the little mouse
(3) a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and
the hammer when the trap is charged
(4) a sensitive catch that releases the hammer when slight pressure
is applied
(5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and charged hammer
(there are also assorted staples to hold the system together)
Behe then continues with his logic as to why this system is "irreducibly complex":
Which part could be missing and still allow you to catch a mouse? If the wooden base were gone, there would be no platform for attaching the other components. If the hammer were gone, the mouse could dance all night on the platform without becoming pinned to the wooden base. If there were no spring, the hammer and platform would jangle loosely, and again the rodent would be unimpeded. If there were no catch or metal holding bar, then the spring would snap the hammer shut as soon as you let go of it...
A mousetrap cannot "evolve" slowly, bit by bit. All of the parts must be in place at the same time. The same with such things as DNA
Viceroy63 wrote:"Truth" 2: Evolution is a fact supported by scientific evidence upon which every scientist agrees.
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever."
-Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA.
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
Living Waters Publications (LWP) acts as an online store for WOTM.
Their fact-checking department appears understaffed. For example, LWP has published tracts featuring a quote from a Dr. T. N. Tahmisian of the Atomic Energy Commission:
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever."
Not only is the opinion of a single nuclear scientist of questionable relevance, Dr. T. N. Tahmisian does not appear to be a real person.
Viceroy63 wrote:-Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research. "[Evolutionary theory] is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support . . . "
This provides some insight:
(source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 922AATdW6c )Since the Revised Quote Book stated that "Prof. Bounoure" had served as the "Director of Research" at the "French National Centre of Scientific Research" I wrote the Center [The Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique = The National Center for Scientific Research]. I asked them about the exact origin of the quotation and received the following reply, dated March 3, 1995 (translated by professional French translator, Jacques Benbassat, with some minor editing and paragraphs re-arranged in an easier to follow order):
Dear Mr. Babinski,
The new director general of the CNRS [i.e., the National Center for Scientific Research in France], Mr. Guy Aubert, has given me your letter of December 6, 1994, in which you requested several points of information concerning the quotations by French scientists, concerning the theory of evolution.
Here is the information I was able to gather:
The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French biologist (he was a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy). The precise quotation is as follows: "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults." (Age Nouveau, [a French periodical] February 1959, p. 12). But Rostand has also written that "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190). Jean Rostand was ... an atheist.
The [end] of the quotation of Professor Bounoure to which you allude is taken from his book, Determinism and Finality, edited by Flammarion, 1957, p. 79. The precise quotation is the following: "That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which [i.e., of how evolution occurs -- ED.] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements."
[Obviously, Bounoure was expressing his distaste at those in his day who argued over the "principles" of evolution, "how" it took place, whether via Lamarckian or Darwinian "evolutionism." Bounoure probably thought that such "principles" were not worth all the "discussions and disagreements" since they were not well understood, were yet to be discovered, and perhaps might not be discovered, i.e., if supernatural intervention into the evolutionary process was accepted. Bounoure was a theist. He also probably thought that more practical scientific investigations needed to be pursued and less "discussions and disagreements." - ED.]
As far as we know, Louis Bounoure never served as ["Director" nor was even] a member of the CNRS. He was a professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg. Bounoure was a Christian but did not affirm that Genesis was to be taken to the letter. He expressed his ideas in his work. He is clearly "finalist" and against all contingent visions of evolution. ["Finalism" is a philosophical term related to a belief in ultimate purpose or design behind everything, including, in this case, the evolution of the cosmos and of life. - ED.] He bases his views, among other things, on the existence of elements that are pre-adapted for their future functions.
[In my letter to the CNRS I also asked whether the quotation might not have originated with another French scientist, "Paul Lemoine," to whom the televangelist James D. Kennedy has incorrectly attributed the quotation. And here was the answer they gave to that question. -- ED.]
As far as Paul Lemoine is concerned, he is indeed a "famous French scientist" since he was the director of the National Museum of Natural History. In the Encyclopedie Francaise [French Encyclopedia, circa 1950s], volume 5, he wrote the following: "It results from this explanation that the theory of evolution is not exact ... Evolution is a kind of dogma which its own priests no longer believe, but which they uphold for the people. It is necessary to have the courage to state this if only so that men of a future generation may orient their research into a different direction." And this quotation often circulates among anti-evolutionist groups.
Paul Lemoine was an atheist, and he was against the theory of evolution because he felt it was not a good explanation of the origin of living beings and by showing its limits risked to discredit materialism. Although this point was not very clear we believe that when he spoke of "the theory of evolution" he was actually addressing the explanation of specifically [how] evolution [occurred] and not the [more general idea] of evolution itself.
The problem [of the origin of the quotation] apparently stems from the confusion in the discourse of these three scientists between the fact of evolution and the explanation of this fact. None were creationists but they all felt that the explanations given for the understanding of evolution were insufficient, even totally inexact.
This is the information that I am able to give you. if you would like to have more details, you could write to Jean Staune, Institut de Paleontologie Humaine, 1 rue Rene Panhard - 75013 Paris. This institute is associated with our own: The National Center of Scientific Research.
Very truly yours,
Marie-Antoinette de Lumley
HMMM.. and yet, soooo many creationists sites persist in posting this quote and referencing this guy.
Viceroy63 wrote: -Michael Denton, molecular biologist
Viceroy63 wrote:(Over 400 scientists are "convinced by new scientific evidence that Darwinian evolution is deficient.")
"Truth" 1: So-called "intelligent design" is biblical creationism in disguise.
"The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself—not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs . . . The reluctance of science to embrace the conclusion of intelligent design . . . has no justifiable foundation . . . . Most people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don't want there to be anything beyond nature"
Viceroy63 wrote:
Michael Behe, molecular scientist from Lehigh University
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, 1996
I am sorry to say, freedom of inquiry in science is being suppressed. Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. They cannot even mention the possibility that—as Newton or Galileo believed—these laws were created by God or a higher being. They could get fired, lose tenure, have their grants cut off. This can happen. It has happened.
Ben Stein, author, actor, film-maker
EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed
PLAYER57832 wrote:ts not enough to say "you don't have all the proof" , you have to actually provide evidence -- not just "logical seeming arguments", but proof, that your ideas even could be true.'
Viceroy63 wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:ts not enough to say "you don't have all the proof" , you have to actually provide evidence -- not just "logical seeming arguments", but proof, that your ideas even could be true.'
Oh, you mean like when Darwinists presented the evidence/Hoax of the "Piltdown Man" or the evidence/Hoax of the "Horse exhibit" or the evidence/Hoax that, "Man evolved from lower primates" That kind of evidence/Hoax?
comic boy wrote:Viceroy I asked very politely for you to clarify some historical points that you had made , why did you not answer my questions ?
PLAYER57832 wrote:Viceroy63 wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:ts not enough to say "you don't have all the proof" , you have to actually provide evidence -- not just "logical seeming arguments", but proof, that your ideas even could be true.'
Oh, you mean like when Darwinists presented the evidence/Hoax of the "Piltdown Man" or the evidence/Hoax of the "Horse exhibit" or the evidence/Hoax that, "Man evolved from lower primates" That kind of evidence/Hoax?
Does nothing to prove your cause. That is the part you keep missing.
Again... saying evolution is wrong is not enough to prove young earth ideas are even possibly correct, never mind enough to prove that they are correct.
Showing that some "evolutionary scientists" have erred or committed fraud doesn't prove that the entire field is bogus. It shows that there are mistakes and frauds everywhere.
Viceroy63 wrote:comic boy wrote:Viceroy I asked very politely for you to clarify some historical points that you had made , why did you not answer my questions ?
Sorry If I ignored you along with the rest of the questionnaires designed to draw me away from the topic of the theory of evolution being a hoax. Honestly if you have a question that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, then may I suggest that you start a new thread on that question and send me an invite to that thread and I would be happy to answer. But I do ignore hundreds if not thousands of questions on this thread that are off topic to this thread of the theory of evolution being a Hoax. OK. So you are not the only one.PLAYER57832 wrote:Viceroy63 wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:ts not enough to say "you don't have all the proof" , you have to actually provide evidence -- not just "logical seeming arguments", but proof, that your ideas even could be true.'
Oh, you mean like when Darwinists presented the evidence/Hoax of the "Piltdown Man" or the evidence/Hoax of the "Horse exhibit" or the evidence/Hoax that, "Man evolved from lower primates" That kind of evidence/Hoax?
Does nothing to prove your cause. That is the part you keep missing.
Again... saying evolution is wrong is not enough to prove young earth ideas are even possibly correct, never mind enough to prove that they are correct.
Showing that some "evolutionary scientists" have erred or committed fraud doesn't prove that the entire field is bogus. It shows that there are mistakes and frauds everywhere.
Scientist have been showing the flaws with the theory of evolution and that it is not even possibly (Mathematically or any other way) right from the start for over the past 150 Years.
Darwin himself claimed that life evolved by way of small ACCUMULATIVE changes over a very long period of time. He never could find evidence to support his claim and as a disclaimer stated that this could be the best real objection to his theory. So that right from the start this very scientist began the process of disproving his own work. Why should other scientist come along and force the issue?
Darwin had hoped that future evidence and findings would be made in time, to support his theory, but time and time again, advancements in science only disproved his theory of evolution one by one, and not supported it.
Darwin's understanding of the complexities of the human cell were not sufficient at the time and so he could not even address the fact of how life would begin in the first place to form from "Mud," (and possibly electricity) "Life," in the first place.
It was in fact believed at the time, that spontaneous animation of non living things was even possible. They prove this by showing maggots on dead meat and never even realized that they came from microscopic eggs left by fly's. They did not have full understanding at the time.
But just five years after the publication of the "Origin of Species" the famous French Biologist, Louis Pasteur, Scientifically refuted these myth's that laid the ground work for evolution and showed that Maggots did not rise from dead meat and neither did frogs from the Mud pools.
Pasteur, after much experimenting reach this very lengthy conclusion that...
"Can matter organize itself? NO!
Today there is no circumstance known under which one could affirm that microscopic beings have come into the world without parents resembling themselves."
Louis Pasteur
Fox & Dosa
Origin of LIfe p. 4-5
A Russian Scientist of the 1930's who tried to create cellular life stated this...
"Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question that is actually the murkiest aspect of the whole theory of evolution.
Alexander Oparin."
Origin of life p. 136.
In more modern times we find this statement...
"Today as we leave the 20th century, we still face the biggest problem that we had when we entered the 20th century: How did life Originate on earth?"
Jeffrey Bada
Earth Magazine, February, 1988
How can we then build on a theory of evolution when we can't even answer the basic question of how life began in the first place? By creating Hoaxes?
Scientist need to first answer the question of life before they can proceed to show how Evolution is real and not by creating any Hoaxes. As it stand, every piece of evidence purported by science to prove evolution is either a Hoax or a grave misunderstanding of the facts.
And I am not the one stating this but am quoting scientist. If you read the Original Post and all the comments I have made, I provide many links to Scientist who are saying this and not me.
Viceroy63 wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Viceroy63 wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:ts not enough to say "you don't have all the proof" , you have to actually provide evidence -- not just "logical seeming arguments", but proof, that your ideas even could be true.'
Oh, you mean like when Darwinists presented the evidence/Hoax of the "Piltdown Man" or the evidence/Hoax of the "Horse exhibit" or the evidence/Hoax that, "Man evolved from lower primates" That kind of evidence/Hoax?
Does nothing to prove your cause. That is the part you keep missing.
Again... saying evolution is wrong is not enough to prove young earth ideas are even possibly correct, never mind enough to prove that they are correct.
Showing that some "evolutionary scientists" have erred or committed fraud doesn't prove that the entire field is bogus. It shows that there are mistakes and frauds everywhere.
Scientist have been showing the flaws with the theory of evolution and that it is not even possibly (Mathematically or any other way) right from the start for over the past 150 Years.
Viceroy63 wrote:
Darwin himself claimed that life evolved by way of small ACCUMULATIVE changes over a very long period of time. He never could find evidence to support his claim and as a disclaimer stated that this could be the best real objection to his theory. So that right from the start this very scientist began the process of disproving his own work. Why should other scientist come along and force the issue?
Viceroy63 wrote: Darwin had hoped that future evidence and findings would be made in time, to support his theory, but time and time again, advancements in science only disproved his theory of evolution one by one, and not supported it.
Viceroy63 wrote:
Darwin's understanding of the complexities of the human cell were not sufficient at the time and so he could not even address the fact of how life would begin in the first place to form from "Mud," (and possibly electricity) "Life," in the first place.
Not entirely true. That is, many people believed this, but it was already controversial .... and remained so for some time even after Pasteur came along. Still, true or not, what does this have to do with disproving evolution?Viceroy63 wrote:
It was in fact believed at the time, that spontaneous animation of non living things was even possible. They prove this by showing maggots on dead meat and never even realized that they came from microscopic eggs left by fly's. They did not have full understanding at the time.
Viceroy63 wrote:
But just five years after the publication of the "Origin of Species" the famous French Biologist, Louis Pasteur, Scientifically refuted these myth's that laid the ground work for evolution and showed that Maggots did not rise from dead meat and neither did frogs from the Mud pools.
Viceroy63 wrote:
Pasteur, after much experimenting reach this very lengthy conclusion that...
"Can matter organize itself? NO!
Today there is no circumstance known under which one could affirm that microscopic beings have come into the world without parents resembling themselves."
Louis Pasteur
Fox & Dosa
Origin of LIfe p. 4-5
A Russian Scientist of the 1930's who tried to create cellular life stated this...
"Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question that is actually the murkiest aspect of the whole theory of evolution.
Alexander Oparin."
Origin of life p. 136.
In more modern times we find this statement...
"Today as we leave the 20th century, we still face the biggest problem that we had when we entered the 20th century: How did life Originate on earth?"
Jeffrey Bada
Earth Magazine, February, 1988
How can we then build on a theory of evolution when we can't even answer the basic question of how life began in the first place? By creating Hoaxes?
Viceroy63 wrote:
Scientist need to first answer the question of life before they can proceed to show how Evolution is real and not by creating any Hoaxes. As it stand, every piece of evidence purported by science to prove evolution is either a Hoax or a grave misunderstanding of the facts.
Viceroy63 wrote:
And I am not the one stating this but am quoting scientist. If you read the Original Post and all the comments I have made, I provide many links to Scientist who are saying this and not me.
Viceroy63 wrote:Scientist have been showing the flaws with the theory of evolution and that it is not even possibly (Mathematically or any other way) right from the start for over the past 150 Years.
Viceroy63 wrote:But I do ignore hundreds if not thousands of questions on this thread...
20 Then God said, “Let the waters [ad]teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
13 Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth. 14 Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with rooms, and shall cover it inside and out with pitch. 15 This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. 16 You shall make a window for the ark, and finish it to a cubit from the top; and set the door of the ark in the side of it; you shall make it with lower, second, and third decks. 17 Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish. 18 But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. 21 As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them.” 22 Thus Noah did; according to all that God had commanded him, so he did.
/ wrote:13 Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth. 14 Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with rooms, and shall cover it inside and out with pitch. 15 This is how you shall make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. 16 You shall make a window for the ark, and finish it to a cubit from the top; and set the door of the ark in the side of it; you shall make it with lower, second, and third decks. 17 Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish. 18 But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. 21 As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them.” 22 Thus Noah did; according to all that God had commanded him, so he did.
Studies show that for the size of Noah's ark; for the mathematics of the vessel and the weight of the animals with supplies to sustain them would, by the laws of physic, only be possible if "kind" refers to a representative of Genus or Family, rather than species.
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was- ... imals.html
Divergent species within the same genus can often interbreed, but the resulting animal is typically sterile; such as is the case between lions and tigers. Given this information, the animals on Noah's ark would logically need to be a common ancestor before this divergence, ergo some evolution must have taken place afterwards in order to account for the now distinct species.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Viceroy63 wrote:
Scientist need to first answer the question of life before they can proceed to show how Evolution is real and not by creating any Hoaxes. As it stand, every piece of evidence purported by science to prove evolution is either a Hoax or a grave misunderstanding of the facts.
Nope, this is EXACTLY backwards. A story begins in the beginning. Science, however, starts with what is known and then goes from there.
jonesthecurl wrote:Incidentally it seems very likely that one of the main hoaxers in the Piltdown man story was Tielad de Chardin, the famous Christian philosopher.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users