• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proof of reincarnation

Because evolutionists can't change their theory
Click to expand...
Who told you that? Actually it is the "by natural selection" bit that you should be poo-pooing if you are a fundamentalist. The evolution part is just observable fact.
 
Last edited:
gerg said:
Reincarnation I admit is still a theory at this stage. Like as in the theory of evolution..
Click to expand...
It is not a scientific theory like evolution, evolution is testable and has been tested, there is no way to test reincarnation.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
gerg said:
That's what I've been saying all along theories are not facts.. this is getting silly folks.
Click to expand...
Yes it is, and in your case childish.

Evolution is a fact. Again, there is a Scientific Theory on how it works.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
gerg said:
Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?
Despite the evidence being pathetic, even if you claim the title of World's Biggest Optimist, evolutionists still tell the story that once upon a time humans evolved from ape-like creatures.

Many years ago this argument seemed credible to a lot of people because there was so little hominid fossil evidence that it was easy to imagine evolutionary links everywhere.

But things have changed. Thousands of fossils and fossil fragments of apes and humans have now been found — and they don't show a steady progression from apes to humans at all. Fossils have been found in the wrong time-frames, put into the wrong categories before all the evidence was in, and what was once thought to be the ape-human family tree now actually has no trunk — just unconnected branches.

Because evolutionists can't change their theory, they are stuck with the evidence looking more confusing for them with each new hominid/homin/hominine fossil discovery. Instead of clarifying the alleged link between apes and humans, new fossil discoveries are making it harder to show which type of ape or ape-like creature evolved into a human.
Click to expand...

An examination and comparison of chimpanzee and human DNA effectively destroys this post. Unless one chooses to deny the existence of this ribbon of life.
 
It is interesting how so many "anti-evolutionists" are so badly informed on how academia actually works. It is surely because they have never witnessed close up the ambiance. I am always amused by the term "evolutionist", not quite as odd as "Darwinist", but close. They seem to think that scientists are a giant cabal or monolithic cult of belief that cannot change a theory once it has been accepted. Au contraire, mon vieux!

This is actually what researchers live for, to nitpick a theory and to show flaws or chinks in the armor, which is how they get the big bucks and fame. It is not an easy task, and is fraught with danger at every step of the way, for if he makes a mistake in his analysis or a lapse in his data collection, he is risking ruin, both academically and financially.
 
Olowkow said:
It is interesting how so many "anti-evolutionists" are so badly informed on how academia actually works. It is surely because they have never witnessed close up the ambiance. I am always amused by the term "evolutionist", not quite as odd as "Darwinist", but close. They seem to think that scientists are a giant cabal or monolithic cult of belief that cannot change a theory once it has been accepted. Au contraire, mon vieux!

This is actually what researchers live for, to nitpick a theory and to show flaws or chinks in the armor, which is how they get the big bucks and fame. It is not an easy task, and is fraught with danger at every step of the way, for if he makes a mistake in his analysis or a lapse in his data collection, he is risking ruin, both academically and financially.
Click to expand...

Gerg:

If you do nothing else, read and try to understand this post.
 
gerg said:
they don't show a steady progression from apes to humans at all.
Click to expand...
so whats this, it shows the transition from Ape like ancestor to modern human, in decreasing time scale oldest at the top left to newest at the bottom right, the chimpanzee skull is in there to remind us of your intellect to show how far we've developed in the last 2.6 million years
fossil-hominid-skulls-1.jpg


•(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
•(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
•(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
•(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
•(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
•(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
•(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
•(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
•(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
•(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
•(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
•(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
•(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
•(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern
Click to expand...
Epic fail,

You were posted this half way down page 4 in response to the last time you made that claim and you didn't have the balls to accept that you were wrong then


deal with it, you just showed everyone you are, an uneducated willfully ignorant pathetic liar
:mad:
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
Gerg:

If you do nothing else, read and try to understand this post.
Click to expand...
I read it and it's not quite right. Reason being is that the Scientific community is fairly tight-knit, and Scientists don't/can't easily offer alternative theories for fear of being outcasted or branded a "wooist" or similar.
 
gerg said:
I read it and it's not quite right. Reason being is that the Scientific community is fairly tight-knit, and Scientists don't/can't easily offer alternative theories for fear of being outcasted or branded a "wooist" or similar.
Click to expand...
Lies, does lying for your so-called god gets you more credits or something.

Einstein General Theory replaced Newton’s Gravity Theory. The Scientific Theory of Evolution has been refined over the years.

Now let’s talk about that bible of yours, all kinds of stuff in that book are wrong, so buddy, where are all the updates for that bible of yours, when are they going to throw out all the woo. Thomas Jefferson did a good job on the bible, why isn't that the new version.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
gerg said:
I read it and it's not quite right. Reason being is that the Scientific community is fairly tight-knit, and Scientists don't/can't easily offer alternative theories for fear of being outcasted or branded a "wooist" or similar.
Click to expand...

absolute rubbish, you don't know what youre talking about, scientists don't just jump out with theories at all. Theres a stage before that which you apparently know nothing about (no surprise there)
scientists base a hypothesis on evidence, if the evidence is tested and found to support the hypothesis it becomes a theory, so scientists don't do anything without credible evidence. Thats is where their approach differs from yours, all you have is ignorance and lies
:p
 
Please stop talking such utter tripe, gerg. Consider the case of Barry Marshall. His alternative theory was accepted once he had proof for it and he won a Nobel Prize. Hardly "outcast."
 
Paulhoff said:
Lies, does lying for your so-called god gets you more credits or something.

Einstein General Theory replaced Newton’s Gravity Theory. The Scientific Theory of Evolution has been refined over the years.

Now let’s talk about that bible of yours, all kinds of stuff in that book are wrong, so buddy, where are all the updates for that bible of yours, when are they going to throw out all the woo. Thomas Jefferson did a good job on the bible, why isn't that the new version.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...
Suddenly this guy spouts on about the Bible. I've never read the Bible nor do I have an interest in reading it! Go and knock on someone else's door dude :rolleyes:
 
gerg said:
Suddenly this guy spouts on about the Bible. I've never read the Bible nor do I have an interest in reading it! Go and knock on someone else's door dude :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

and another lie, youve posted one religious website after another and your only attempt to counter claim anything was to claim that the eye could not evolve without a designer.

lying is a sin and you are a sinner then, youre going to hell
:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom